Make wall strength direction based.

[Onionfighter]

Make it so walls are normal strength from the inside or outside, but weaker when approaching from the flank (excepting corner posts, of course). This is realistic, and will make managing walls easier.

Here is an example of what I mean:
If there is a wall going east-west (represented by dashes) like this:

-------------

Then breaking it from the north or south will be more difficult than from the east or west.

[Chakravanti]

This has actually been proposed before.

I support, but we'll not pretend this is about personal claim management (even though it is).

[Onionfighter]

It was my impression that inside/outside was suggested as a means of telling the difference, but I could be mistaken.

I support, but we'll not pretend this is about personal claim management (even though it is).

I'm not sure what you mean, but this would be helpful for managing claims, and breaking other people's walls.

[Chakravanti]

The waynesville vault. Like I said, it's been posted long before this and I agree.

[Alamarian]

A different idea: allow a claim owner to destroy items/constructions in half, or even a third, of the time. You could extend that privilege to people in groups with the "vandalism" box ticked.

[Delamore]

Other suggestion: Wah wah wah they made it hard to get to them wah wah wah lets make underpowered walls even less powerful wah wah wah

[Jackard]

lol @ hanuman the notorious bottleneck assassin posting this

qq moar nubs

[Chakravanti]

Other suggestion: Wah wah wah they made it hard to get to them wah wah wah lets make underpowered walls even less powerful wah wah wah

Well i don't disagree with this idea but implementting it by itself would be exactly this. Making QL affect would would making the building of walls as they were intended more effective and more feasable.

Note that I support implementing these ideas together even though it would essentially give WV the ability to make more powerful walls than I so don't point that troll finger at me and say I'm whining about WV being uber. My motivation for supporting this conjuntion of ideas is pure for an appeal to the aesthetic.

[Onionfighter]

Other suggestion: Wah wah wah . . .

Please point out the whiny part of my post. I wouldn't want my whining to interfere with the message.

lets make underpowered walls even less powerful

Well, thinking about this, I can remember three instances where this would have come into play. The WV bunker is of course the most prominent (but don't expect Wayneville to be the last group to use such a tactic.)

When raiding Chernobyl, shortly after breaking through all the walls some alts or noobs quickly rebuild the walls while many of the attackers were still inside the city, which is a bit ridiculous. The difficulty of breaking walls also makes completely razing a place much harder than it should be. In my opinion the initial break-in should be the hardest part.

My suggestion also would have helped Wayneville when they attacked Xanadu. This is the only situation I know of where a city's walls were attacked and defended (at least on the scale it was).


I realize that my suggestion doesn't address the main problem with walls: That they represent an insurmountable barrier to new players while a mere hindrance to those who have been inhaling BBBs. I wasn't attempting to address this, however, and I wouldn't view this as a nerfing of wall strength since wall strength would be the same in the majority of situations.

Another way to have varrying wall strength would be to have walls supported at both ends have 100% soak, walls supported at one end have 50% soak, and unsupported walls could have 25% soak.

[warrri]

the fuck are you talking about? this _only_ adresses the wv bunker since its the only one where you have to bash the walls sideways. none of your scenarios wouldve been different with your suggestion